Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 42

Survey (moratorium proposal)

Option A, Globally, as nom — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 10:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D. I see no need for a moratorium at this time as discussion on this topic after this time period from the last RFC on this page can still be constructive and WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 10:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A. The time scale for genocide scholars to prepare new research articles based on evidence and arguments is anywhere from a few months to several years and the time scale of the peer review process from submission to publication in high-quality journals is anywhere from a few months to a year or more. Wikipedians who don't wish to wait a year on this topic can help improve {{Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate}} and Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide. Boud (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

If it takes months to years to review research on genocide, how did these "scholars" manage to do it anywhere from day two to less than two years in? This sounds like an argument that there in fact isnt a reliable or valid academic consensus on the topic because it would be impossible to have attained that. ← Metallurgist (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A there is a difference between discussing what could potentially improve the article and rehashing the same arguments over and over again. If and when new reliable sources become available, then we can compare them to what we already have and see if they can tip the balance or cement the current result even further. M.Bitton (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A - Well past time for the disruption and bludgeoning to end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Bludegoning is about sending lots of messages in a discussion to people you disagree with starting discussions on a topic like this after some time has passed from an RFC in my view is not bludgeoning. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 20:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

41 posts on this current TP, as one editor has done, is bludgeoning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

If it was in one topic sure but if not it depends on how those are posted its not automatically bludgeoning(also I would add I think there are better ways to prevent bludgeoning than a moratorium.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 21:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A and thank you for starting this moratorium discussion, it is becoming tiring to see the same arguments repeated over and over again for months.

Insofar as we are going to impose a moratorium on more than one article, it might be prudent to list this discussion at all the relevant articles you have in mind and pertinent WikiProjects Katzrockso (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: (edit conflict) Hold on just a second, @The Cheesedealer. There's nothing wrong with proposing a moratorium for this article as you have here, but in order for it to apply to all the concerned Wikipedia articles, I'm not sure if it can happen on this page, at least not without an RFC. I think that your proposed moratorium is good, but It's important that this is done properly, to avoid later confusion and drama. I'm no longer certain that this is a good idea. I'll abstain from this proposal. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC) (Underlined added 09:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC))

I had in mind the Israel article, since it is suffering from the same issue. If the policy isn't allowing this I will edit my proposal accordingly without resistance — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 14:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It makes sense that this should apply to all articles that mention this one, but I'm worried that if we just have an informal discussion here (or any other one article talk page), others will say that whatever it results in is a local consensus that only applies to that article. Admittedly, I'm not sure what the correct course of action is, but I think this should at least be an RFC. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

this should at least be an RfC, this referring to whether the moratorium should be enforced on all concerned articles? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 14:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to the proposal as a whole, so I think the answer to your question is yes. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

D So far this is seems like a case where the "pro" side just barely got this over the line in one article and has leveraged that to get it questionably over the line in a second article and now wants to say no one is allowed to question or challenge something that many editors, rightly, see as a NPOV issue. Also, what if a new scholarship comes out and says this is still debated among scholars or if a legal paper comes out and says this doesn't fit legal definitions? Also, this is a local RfC, not a en.Wiki RfC. Any result here absolutely should not apply to other articles. Springee (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that a specific discussion about making RfCs apply across articles hasn't reached a consensus that RfCs should apply outside of their specific article . Springee (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Springee, this isn't any kind of WP:RFC. It's just an ordinary, unadvertised talk-page discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

How can I turn it into an RfC? And should I even do that? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 20:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I think adding {{rfc}} (with topics) to the top of the section would do it. If you did, I would suggest phrasing your question to be more neutral. It is currently slanted towards a moratorium. Given how many responses this section has, it might be a better idea to just make a new section, but I'm not sure. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

what ... if a legal paper comes out and says this doesn't fit legal definitions? assuming it's reliable, then it will count as just one source that we'll compare to the others (what we have as well as what has recently been published). M.Bitton (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D and Locally. The argument for a moratorium not only ignores that WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, but also that the facts on the ground can change. Unless we have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, we can't have a moratorium on, for example, removing the word "ongoing" from the genocide description. Don't we want genocides to be able to end, and for Wikipedia to reflect that? It has been said on this talk page that we need to wait for reliable sources to conclude that the genocide is no longer ongoing -- but this moratorium proposal essentially says that even if reliable sources state that, the article shouldn't be changed (because changing the article will require an RfC). This is especially the case in light of the Arbitration Committee rule for this page that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page".

It is also improper for a talk conversation on this one page to impose a moratorium globally. Coining (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The moratorium isn't about whether the genocide is ongoing or not, it's about whether we talk about it in wikivoice or not, which can also be discussed if there is a manifest change in the scholarly scene that would challenge it, otherwise it would be - just as it has been - a waste of time.. Regarding the globality, I remember an RfC about whether we can use "Hamas-run GHM" instead of just "GHM" and it's result imposed a global effect, that's what encouraged me to discuss this here. It would be really pointless to take editors' time to discuss this here just for it to be brought again in another article — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 17:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

So, to clarify, your view is that this discussion is just about the Wikivoice element, meaning the first four words of the lead sentence ("The Gaza genocide is ...") and the rest of the sentence would be unaffected by a moratorium?

In any case, it is not pointless to discuss things on different article talk pages -- it's part of the process of determining whether consensus is truly present, in part by ensuring that interested editors are informed across a variety of different pages. That's especially true on substantive questions, rather than primarily stylistic questions. Coining (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it's about clarifying with no attribution that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, in all the articles that may tackle this — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 01:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

is committing, not has committed? So, the word ongoing would or would not be affected by a moratorium? This proposal is ill-formed and should be abandoned. Coining (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Dude, the moratorium is just about the representation of the genocide in wikivoice without any need for attribution ("according to..."), that's what the previous discussions were about. I didn't intend with it to curb discussion on whether the genocide is still taking place or not — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 16:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you though for seemingly abandoning the effort to apply this RfC globally by adding cot - seems like a bad idea.... I think though that the correct way to do that is to strike through that section rather than use Template:Collapse top because, according to that page, This template should only be used by uninvolved editors. Coining (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

While it does say that, my understanding of the reasoning is that it is to avoid situations where a party uses hatting as a weapon, hence why Wikipedia:Superhatting is linked to right afterwards. In this case, The Cheesedealer appears to have hatted himself, so the issue that the template warning is primarily focused on isn't happening here. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@GothicGolem29, Boud, Achmad Rachmani, Objective3000, Katzrockso, Springee, and M.Bitton:, please update your vote to specify the locality/generality of the RfC--— 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 17:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

What did mean by specify? Do you mean update my !vote to say if I oppose a moratorium across all articles or just on this page? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 19:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

nah, if you reject a moratorium altogether then there's no need for you to specify — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 19:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok fair enough thanks for clarifying. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 20:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@The Cheesedealer has this discussion been listed at all the relevant talk pages it would be expected to apply to? Katzrockso (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I posted it in Israel's talk page, ig listing it on the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects should be enough no? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 22:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

There have been debates over whether RfCs at one talk page are binding for another talk page at a recent VPP discussion, so I am not sure. I also don't know if there is any precedent for having a moratorium apply to one more than one talk page, that seems like a fairly drastic step up if that's the case. Katzrockso (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso, remember that this isn't an RFC, at least not yet. That makes the possibility of this applying to other articles doubly questionable. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A Globally I am surprised this still rumbles on. It's all as described by the originator of this RfC. Let's put it to bed for at least a year and move on.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D I agree with nom that the continued attempts to overturn or circumvent the prior RfC are a huge waste of time. However, a moratorium on an ongoing event is a bad look and has the potential to prevent legitimate discussion. I would prefer instead the community deal more strictly with bad faith attempts to re-litigate the same issues that were discussed ad nauseam in the prior RfC. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The scope of this is limited to the wikivoice question, not about details that might change (e.g. death toll, ongoing status and so on).

I see no way how new developments could "undo" the scholar characterization of genocide as the evidence for it has passed a certain threshold at some point in the past and there is no real way of "undoing" that.

Even something drastic like an internal documents leak on the Israeli site could only not affect the scholar view or strengthen it. Laura240406 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that any new evidence will likely strengthen the assessment that Israel is committing genocide. My objection to a moratium is based purely on principle rather than any issue with RfC decision. As Placeholder notes below, we can close non-productive discussions without needing a moratorium. So the moratorium only serves to close off the potential for legitimate debate (even if there is unlikely to be any change in scholarly consensus of genocide) while creating the potential for scope creep. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A, Globally every time people have challenged the previous RfCs, they brought up the same points that were beaten do death already. I see no way in which some radically new information could change the general characterization of Israel's conduct as genocide. Laura240406 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A, globally per Cheesedealer, Boud, M.Bitton, and others. إيان (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D per WP:NABOBS. A contentious topic will never stop being contentious. I do acknowledge that I personally have spent too much time in this topic area and will make an effort to diversify my editing in the future. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to comment that a 12-month moratorium that applies to all of Wikipedia seems excessive. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Refusing to respond to discussions with the argument "this was discussed before" is status quo stonewalling. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments like these are sealioning. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D per WP:ADVOCACY and WP:CCC. It's inappropriate for the advocates for one side, having achieved a consensus in favor of their position to date, to demand that their position be protected against being challenged for months or a year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, if you have evidence of ADVOCACY, then take it to AE. Casting aspersions and labelling one 'side' as advocates in a CT (and on one of the most controversial articles in said CT) is poor from anyone, let alone an admin Kowal2701 (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that there is advocacy, it is occurring externally in the media and social media. That is the cause in large part, and the moratorium proposal is one way to try to mitigate the disruptive effects. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D due to the fact that moratoria are not standardised in Wikipedia, and rarely used for such a contentious topic. Contentious topics will always be contentious, unless a compromise can be reached, which is what is being searched for currently. --VidanaliK (talk to me)

Option D. Way too many editors still think that the lead is not NPOV. This dispute has even led to a rare intervention by the founder of Wikipedia and has appeared in the news. This talk page is already under extended confirmed protection, which is rare for a talk page. Prohibiting even the suggestion that the lead is not NPOV would be an excessive silencing action and would further damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Heitordp (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Please do not suggest that Jimbo's comments, or that they have been in the "news", should have any sway whatsoever as to discussions in Wikipedia. As for ECP, that is very common in the PIA arena. And no one has suggested that suggestions of NPOV content are prohibited. As for many editors disagree with the previous RfC, that's also obvious as a 2 to 1 result in a heavily contested RfC leaves a very large number of editors that disagreed, many of whom would like a do-over. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That's just a example showing how contentious it is, I do not think that Heitordp was trying to use an Argumentum ad Jimbonem. VidanaliK (talk to me) 02:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Then why did they bring it up using the word "intervention"? There was no intervention as it was quickly dismissed. And everything in the PIA arena is contentious.. That is not a reason to constantly relitigate. I think you are up to 42 current posts on this TP now. Wikipedia:BLUDGEON O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

"Intervention" as in comment. I agree the wording could have been better chosen, but him making any sort of statement about it could be counted as an "intervention" due to his symbolic prominence within the Wikipedia community. You can disregard that statement; the general idea is that a large number of editors still think that the lead is not NPOV. VidanaliK (talk to me) 02:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I used the wrong word. By intervention I meant that Jimbo joined the discussion about a Wikipedia article, which he rarely does. Anyway, I do think that his comments and news coverage are relevant because they show the level of severity of this dispute. I don't recall this happening with any other topic for the 20 years that I've edited Wikipedia.

ECP is common in contentious articles but not in their talk pages. There are only 13 talk pages with ECP in the entire English Wikipedia (excluding redirects and subpages). Heitordp (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment. A set length of time moratorium seems inappropriate given the contentiousness of the topic, so I would favor only a short one if one is needed at all. However, the community's consensus is well established and extremely well substantiated. A lot of effort on all sides of the debate went into making this article's presentation of its single most controversial aspect as precise and well supported as it is. I think there is merit to the importance of centralizing discussion on this question, and putting restrictions on the re-hashing of old arguments with no new information. Perhaps there is a better way to accomplish this than a timed restriction? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D locally It's established procedure to close RfCs/discussions that are unreasonably soon after unreasonably similar RfCs/discussions (is there some WP: page that spells that out?). The proposals I'm aware of have been pretty clear-cut reruns of recent discussions, and I don't think a special moratorium is necessary to handle those. A moratorium risks blocking some actually productive discussion. "Locally" reduces that risk. This proposal says please note that this shouldn't prevent new discussions that brings new stuff to the table—that's just the way talk pages are supposed to work Placeholderer (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALL I think? Placeholderer (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe WP:REHASH is the best fit? I digress on my digression... Placeholderer (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the best close would be one that just finds consensus to quickly close discussions that are just rehashed iterations of recent discussions that add no new information, without calling that a moratorium. I don't think there's a serious dispute that closing those is correct, and there should be no time limit on when it's appropriate to close those. It's not clear to me from this discussion what relevant tools imposing a full-on moratorium to prevent further revisits of this conversation adds—we already can and do close repeat discussions. Saying that there's a special moratorium in place is just creating a needless other dimension that will definitely be argued about and will maybe be misconstrued to disruptively block discussion Placeholderer (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that a close should advise people, in starting threads about whether or not to attribute the genocide description (that's what I understand all this discussion to be about), to explicitly state what new, undiscussed information the thread adds to the conversation Placeholderer (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Heck, maybe that's what a mechanically meaningful "moratorium"-or-some-other-word could look like—mandating that to initiate discussion about whether or not to attribute the genocide description, an editor must explicitly state what new, undiscussed information makes discussion worthwhile.

Pardon my thinking out loud (in text) Placeholderer (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Option C > Option D, Locally. I see the RfC as too flawed to be set in stone, and the volume of discussions seems to indicate a level of unsatisfaction at the result as it currently stands. (And by that I do not consider the blatant disregard of Wiki principles often coming from outside such as you Jew-haters, which will not stop and is easily ignored.) While I do acknowledge the volume of serious, non-biased, scholar opinions that a genocide is ongoing, we cannot fail to also acknowledge a number of also serious, non-biased scholar opinions which consider that genocide criteria are not meant, which is made clear by the table of opinions maintained on this very page. This table also shows a distinct 3rd type of opinion: yes it is a genocide, but it is continuous since the occupation started and not since 7 October or just in Gaza, which both sides will likely count as their own. The closure of the original RfC IMHO failed to acknowledge that 1°) current academic consensus is made of both these opinions, not just one and 2°) funding principles of Wikipedia such as WP:V and WP:5P2 weight to have these statements attributed rather than said in Wikivoice. Also, the comment that the current wording was established by many RfCs across more than one article conveniently ignores the other RfC which had concluded in the opposite direction in May 2025: Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_9#RfC: Genocide in wikivoice/opening sentence, and that the RfC at Talk:Israel was closed pretty much saying this had already been discussed elsewhere and disregarded any opposing opinion as "not acknowledging the result", without arguing positively why the wording for Gaza genocide should be applied as is at Israel. Unless these flaws are taken care of, the discontent is likely to continue, from within and without Wikipedia. WP:Consensus can change, but we can allow ourselves a period of relative quietness on the issue, but limited to 3 months. Place Clichy (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A: 12-month moratorium. The relitigating of a well attended RFC with clear consensus, so soon after it concluded and with nothing new to bring to the table is disruptive. Ps, I think this can only be imposed locally, as I don't see that the relevent noticeboards (WP:VP/PR etc) were informed of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment, if there is a moratorium, the close needs to explicitly state that it only covers repeated arguments about old evidence, and that it shouldn’t be used to stymie discussion about new evidence, sources, or arguments Kowal2701 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

B, perhaps C. I think a year is too long. B to have another RfC with noting new of note, C if someone brings something new to the table in a discussion first. Definitely not D as it just means long discussions making people annoyed to no purpose as far as Wikipedia is concerned. C will give time for cool down hopefully and if broken can be used at AE to remove troublemakers. NadVolum (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D Per Springee. This whole situation does seem like one side managed to get a result in their favor, and now they're trying everything to preserve and leverage it. Moratoria here are rare, and as far as I know are for cases where there's an overwhelming consensus, not a marginal one. Failing option D, Locally. Anomie⚔ 21:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A the underlying issue here is not whether discussion is allowed, but whether repeatedly reopening the same question shortly after multiple well attended RfCs with clear consensus and no materially new sources serves the project. At that point it is simply rehashing arguments that have already been considered and rejected, which wastes editor time and becomes disruptive. A 12 month moratorium is a reasonable cooling-off period that does not bar future discussion, provided it is based on genuinely new evidence. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D per EvansHallBear. A moratorium will not make this less contentious or controversial. Tendentious threads re-litigating previous discussions without adding something new can be closed without a moratorium. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A, but would support any length moratorium as a backup. One sentence should not ocuppy so much editor time and effort. We all have better thing to do on this site than endlessly relitigate this. CamAnders (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A, with the usual caveat that moratoriums are not strictly binding and can be overturned themselves if something actually changes or if it's glaringly obvious that consensus has actually shifted; in practice they raise the bar for re-opening a subject, they can't make it impossible. But for now, nothing has changed since the last RFC; if anything, academic consensus has continued to shift towards support for the version we have now. And consensus here on how to summarize that clearly hasn't shifted. When people constantly ask the same question, in a very short timeframe, with no real reason to think that they will get a different result, that's the sort of thing a moratorium is needed for - articles are not supposed to be written via filibuster. The argument that this would be a bad look is both irrelevant (per my argument at WP:NOTREPUTATION) and, I think, actively wrong; the repetitive attempts to overturn the RFC, and the way this talk page has been turned into endless filibusters on the same topic, do more serious harm to our reputation than anything else. Our role as an encyclopedia means we decide things by evaluating the best available sources and summarizing them; we don't host endless filibusters and debates for people unhappy with that summary. While our reputation shouldn't be our primary concern, in the long run it is built on standing by our principles when it comes to eg. prioritizing high-quality academic sources, not by allowing people who disagree with the outcome that leads to to turn a talk page into an endless filibuster against the article. Also, as an aside, some people above have implied that the consensus behind the RFCs in question was weak or that it just barely got over the line; this is, by any measure we have available, wildly untrue, to the point where I'd suggest the closer disregard arguments based on it. Numerically, it was overwhelming, with a more than 2:1 ratio, and was well-attended, with nearly 90 people; while numbers aren't everything, this, coupled with a closure indicating a strong consensus when all the other factors are taken into account, underlines the fact that it's unlikely to shift any time soon. It was the result of extended discussion and back and forth over an extended period of time, but part of that was that (as the article says!) the actual academic consensus was shifting; it is natural that our article would shift to reflect that. For what it is worth, it is also flatly untrue that moratoriums are not frequently used in controversial topic areas, another strange argument made above - that's the main place where they're used, because that's where we most frequently run into the problem they exist to solve. --Aquillion (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D Despite claims the RFC was well-attended, it wasnt. There have been massive complaints about this both on and off wiki, with the VRT deluged with emails about it, wasting their time. Consensus is supposed to be a combination of best arguments and what satisfies everyone. Most of those who want to voice it would be satisifed with attributing it. That is the consensus. And while there is frustration over the continued attempts to revisit it, that reflects that the current wording does not have consensus and trying to ramrod this and lock it in with a moratorium is concerning. There are numerous reasons to question the credibility of the sources used to claim there is a genocide. The very fact of it is indeed disputed in a significant manner that no other alleged genocide has ever been. The clear and simple solution is to not have a moratorium and to reverse the voicing to the true consensus of attributing it to the (shoddy, but prominent) sources claiming there is/was a genocide. Its also worth noting, consensus was strong for removal of ongoing on ITN, so consensus is shifting on the topic. Arguments by BobFromBrockley and EvansHallBear are particularly persuasive and prudent. ← Metallurgist (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D per EvansHallBear. If people want to discuss this issue or address why any news or reports may affect this issue, then they should be allowed to do so. Guz13 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A, globally. This continuous questioning of a previous RfC which saw large participation and reached a consensus is not only against normal Wikipedia norms, it also disrupts work on this article and related ones, possibly on purpose. --Ita140188 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A (12 months) We've now had multiple well-attended discussions that reached the same conclusion, and the attempts to reopen this issue have not introduced materially new sources or arguments. At some point this stops being constructive and becomes simple rehashing. A year-long moratorium is a reasonable cooling-off period that still leaves the door open should new compelling scholarship emerge.--Genabab (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D per Metallurgist. There is absolutely no consensus on this topic. Not in the wikipedia bubble, nor in the real world. Lumdeloo (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

"A REAL lot of people REALLY hate what Wikipedia is saying" doesn't mean there is no consensus. There are plenty of subjects where, e.g., hundreds of powerful politicians, billionaires or millions of Trump admirers all over the world sharply disagree with Wikipedia's presentation – that doesn't matter for Wikipedia's purposes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh sure, I get that. But the pie chart in this very article has 46% of the experts saying it’s genocide. That means that 54% procent says it isn’t. So how on earth do get from that to using wikivoice to state in the first sentence of this article that it’s genocide, period? At the very least, the difference in opinion that exist in the expert community about this should be reflected in the introduction of this article. And that means: not using wikivoice! Lumdeloo (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You noticed that 36% more experts say "major war crimes akin to genocide"? That's not clearly saying "totally not genocide".

In any case, this is not the only evidence for an academic consensus, let alone the most important one; it's the overwhelming majority of recent academic sources that speak of a genocide. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A - Though I'll support a moratorium of any meaningful length as these continuous attempts to relitigate the issue have been an unproductive time sink. Arguments opposing the established consensus have consistently lacked policy based reasoning for why the current consensus should be overturned, nor have they demonstrated that any new developments have occurred to change that. The idea that complaints about this article's content prove a lack of consensus is not grounded in reality. The subject of this article, regardless of what it actually states, will inherently be highly contentious. The number of advocacy organizations, online campaigns, & POV-pushing sockpuppets in the topic area alone will guarantee that there will always be objections to this article, & that's on top of the regular complaints any politicized article receives in droves. If a substantial shift among reputable scholars occurs that would actually justify reexamining past consensus, then yes, it should be discussed, but until then, there is no reason to keep discussing this. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk)

Option D: if it is challenged so often, then there wasn't consensus in the first place. Cambalachero (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

That relies on the premise that challenges are policy based, since consensus must be policy based. Are all the challenges consistent with policy? Certainly not. The RfC is Wikipedia's tool that determines consensus on the question asked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

And your answer relies on the premise that in a given discussion there's only one answer that can be "policy based" Cambalachero (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A/nonbinding moratorium Chetsford or some other admin wrote this best in a close i cannot recall, and I kinda agree with it now, but moratoriums don't really exist in policy for RFCs, only as an essay, and in general any extraneous RFC can be snow closed if enough folks ask for the procedural close, or if an uninvolved admin does it. But as nobody really is bringing up new arguments with these, i'll vote Option A until/unless things change. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

this rfc close is what comes to mind Talk:Gulf of Mexico/Archive 4#Moratorium on this nonsense. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D. The nomination mentions "arguments that were disregarded in the previous RfCs", and that's exactly the problem. Arguments against saying "genocide" in wikivoice and against the alleged "consensus" among "scholars" were disregarded, and arguments for it, which were largely based on a biased selection of sources, were given too much weight. Trying to push this "consensus" onto other articles, or even onto the whole English Wikipedia, is a terrible idea that violates NPOV and undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You voted D because you consider the result of the RfC invalid and you would like the opportunity to overturn the result. Is that an accurate summary of your reasoning? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:SEALION SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D. - There is no need to prevent constructive conversations from taking place. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

It explicitly says this shouldn't prevent new discussions that brings new stuff to the table. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Except that a moratorium would effectively prevent new discussions by cutting off most of the reason for having discussions, which is to get feedback. Editors are repeatedly saying that these discussions are a waste of time. So, if the only purpose of the proposed moratorium is to prevent formal discussions (RfCs), then the informal discussions that in theory are allowed are simply opportunities for some editors to say "this isn't a formal discussion, so I don't see any reason to participate". There is not much value in having a one-sided discussion, so the discussions simply won't occur. And I suspect that any that are started will be met with a chorus of complaints that the initiator is violating the moratorium. Coining (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The point is to reduce nonconstructive conversations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Excellent! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it to be understood from your answer here that you acknowledge that your rational for picking Option D is void? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 19:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

For goodness' sake.

We can already can, should, and do close discussions that don't bring anything new to the table. The stuff this moratorium ostensibly targets doesn't need special permission to close early. For the moratorium to actually change the status quo, it must somehow expand the sort of discussions that can be closed early. It's reasonable to worry that expanding beyond the already-functional criteria for closing early means closing things that shouldn't be closed.

Say the set of discussions we should already be closing is "A". The set of discussions this moratorium claims to be about is, also, A. For the moratorium to actually mean closing more discussions, it would mean discussions will be closed that are not in set A. The fact that discussions not in set A might newly get closed under this moratorium is, for me at least, the main concern.

Optimistically, the moratorium could just reduce the scope for arguing about closes of discussions in that set A, without any collateral damage in closing other discussions. Pessimistically (my view), the moratorium introduces a whole new category of unproductive discussion—back-and-forths around whether or not given discussions fall under this special moratorium Placeholderer (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I stand by my option D. As many have said above WP:CCC, and I have only recently been more active on this space, I have not had the opportunity to partake in discussions and I would like to not be met with a moratorium on this front. Thanks for your question. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is, who decides what is non-constructive? Lumdeloo (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A, Globally - Multiple RfCs have confirmed it, yet those whose POV keeps being rejected won't relent and keep trying to relitigate it even though there's no new information of note that can change the consensus, and there is no expection of such within the next 12 months. The entire human rights community and the majority of genocide scholars have determined it to be genocide. It's enough now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

As has been cited earlier by Lumdeloo, the pie chart used in this article shows that 46% of scholars say there is a genocide. 54% say there isn't. It is nearly split, with the slight majority actually saying there is no genocide. There is actually no majority of scholars saying there is a genocide. VidanaliK (talk to me) 03:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC) VidanaliK (talk to me) 03:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That pie chart is one survey of one set of scholars (Mid East scholars, not genocide scholars) from January-February 2025, and you are misrepresenting it as 46 + 36% = 82% say it is either genocide or akin to genocide. Right next to it is an entire section that states in wikivoice that the consensus view among genocide scholars is that it is genocide, including: "In May 2025, NRC wrote that leading scholars in genocide studies are "surprisingly unanimous" that Israel is committing genocide." And: "On 31 August 2025, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), the world's biggest academic association of genocide scholars, passed a resolution saying that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza."

There have been multiple RfCs where editors have gone over all the relevant and highest quality sourcing on this subject, including taking into account the quality and quantity of scholars, and they have confirmed repeatedly that the majority of genocide scholars believe it is genocide. Yet here you are contesting it not by citing any new sourcing, but by relitigating what has already been determined by consensus multiple times in short order.

This is exactly why a 12 month moratorium is needed. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's go over this. The surveys (with 600+ respondents) lists that second option as "war crimes akin to genocide" not just "akin to genocide" as you say. That means that they are not calling it genocide unequivocally. Which is exactly what the current article does, calling it genocide unequivocally, in wikivoice. The NRC article is an interview with 7 genocide scholars who all agree on calling it genocide. And they say they don't know any scholar who disagrees with them. While certainly a usable source, NRC could have also interviewed scholars who don't agree with the genocide label. Interestingly, the article mentions the 7 scholars have different definitions of what genocide is. And to NRC's surprise they still all agree on Israel is committing a genocide! To me that's not a surprise LOL. Then the resolution by The International Association of Genocide Scholars. There has been controversy about that resolution, on who the members of the IAGS actually are (non-scholars can also be a member) and the sources that the resolution uses. Other scholars and non-scholars have argued for the retraction of that resolution (https://www.scholarsfortruthaboutgenocide.com/). What this boils down to is that there is no consensus on this subject. It's fine to state that a majority of scholars believe it's genocide. But it not near-unanimous. So, don't use wikivoice to suggest it is. And just lay out the majority and minority view in the introduction of this article, like a good NPOV wikipedia article should. Lumdeloo (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

First, on the survey: It surveys some Middle East scholars, not genocide scholars, in January-February 2025, which was before the UN's Human Rights Council, major human rights organizations including Israeli and additional scholarly experts concluded it is genocide. And even then the substantive majority of those surveyed, 46 + 36% = 82%, said it was genocide or akin to genocide, so the consensus would be even more unanimous today in line with increasing RS recognition of genocide afterward rather than its diminishing. I don't see how highlighting "war crimes" akin to genocide makes it any better for your case. Second, the NRC piece is not being used as a headcount of "7 scholars, it is cited because it accurately summarizes the state of the field via its most notable and respected scholars per the RS, and that summary has been corroborated by additional high-quality secondary sources since. The claim that NRC could have interviewed dissenting scholars, whose quality or notability you are not the judge of per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH but is determined by their status in the field as noted in RS, is speculative and not a rebuttal to what reliable sources actually state. Objections to the IAGS resolution have also already been extensively reviewed in previous discussions. None of this negates the fact that IAGS is the largest professional association in the field and that its resolution represents a formal position adopted by that body. Disagreement does not equal lack of consensus, as consensus in Wikipedia is not unanimity. The article does not state that all scholars agree. It states that the consensus view among genocide scholars is that it is genocide, which is exactly what multiple high-quality secondary sources say. Minority and dissenting views are covered elsewhere in the article in proportion to their prominence, which is precisely how WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are supposed to work. At this point, multiple RfCs have examined all the same sources, the same objections, and the same arguments you are raising yet again now, and have reached the same outcome. Continuing to challenge settled wording without new, high-quality sourcing is textbook WP:IDHT. Once again, your very responses here show exactly why a moratorium is needed. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

First of all, thank you, I appreciate you're taking the time to respond to someone who is new to this page.

About that survey, the distinction between warcrimes and genocide is a categorical one. You can't just add them up and say that 82% supports the genocide claim. More in general, I do see that a majority of the scholars who spoke out on this subject are in the "it's genocide" camp. It's fine to state that. What I strongly disagree with is that the RS support using wikivoice to state Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The RS are nowhere near showing a consensus among scholars about this question. In fact it still is highly debated and will be for a long time. So how on earth are we using wikivoice for this? The RfC that resulted in using wikivoice in the first place showed a majority for your position, but didn't show a consensus either. And the ongoing discussions on this talkpage also strongly suggest there is no consensus.

To me, the resulting article reads like something written to convince the reader of the genocide accusation instead of a NPOV wikipedia article that clearly lays out the different majority and minority perspectives on the subject. I think using wikivoice prematurely for such a disputed subject seriously hurts wikipedia's reputation. Why do you insist using wikivoice while there are so many other and (and in my view) better ways to communicate that currently the majority of scholars say it's genocide? Lumdeloo (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The key issue here is a misunderstanding of how wikivoice and consensus work on Wikipedia. Wikivoice does not require unanimity or the absence of ongoing debate, it requires consensus in high-quality RS describing a dominant view in the relevant expert field. That threshold is obviously met. Multiple reliable sources explicitly state that the consensus view among genocide scholars and human rights organizations is that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This is not an editorial judgment by Wikipedia but a direct characterization made by RS, which Wikipedia is required to reflect under WP:RS and WP:V. There is no other case in which Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN and the same level of consensus among genocide scholars exists where it would be even controversial to state this. Only here has it been made controversial. That's a very serious problem and it undermines the fundamentals of how Wikipedia ought to operate.

Regarding the survey, you once again erased the "akin to genocide" part of the war crimes response which shows a combined 82%, and ignored that it was early 2025 from a limited set of Mid-East (not genocide) scholars and that the later trajectory of additional high quality expert RS determining it is genocide would only further expand this figure, not reduce it.

And once more, all your arguments are relitigating what has already been settled multiple times. You are not bringing any new sources or arguments to the table. That fact by itself shows why a moratorium is essential, because it appears like you and other editors who agree with your POV will keep trying to relitigate it over and over again. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with trying to find a compromise that appeals to editors on both sides? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Multiple highly attended RfCs have confirmed that this is the consensus view per WP:CONSENSUS. Asking us to ignore basic Wikipedia processes just because some editors refuse to accept that consensus is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Once again, the insistence that we bypass normal operations simply underscores why a moratorium is essential. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision-making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (emphasis added for the second bolded word)

Wikipedia is not about winning. It is about working together to build an encyclopedia. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The consensus is already established, so there is no longer room for compromise regarding that consensus unless you believe the existing consensus, which had dozens to hundreds of contributions over the course of two months, was somehow inadequate at establishing consensus.

Consensus does not get to be ignored later on down the line, because some editors don't like it, for the sake of "compromise". Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:WIKIVOICE: Seriously contested assertations should not be peresented as facts. The issue when using Wikivoice is not unanimity or absence of ongoing debate, but the reliability of both sides. We have reliable sources on both sides, and for some reason only one side gets wikivoice. VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE says that "seriously contested assertions should not be presented as facts." This is clearly seriously contested by multiple reliable sources. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 10:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." It is disruptive when no previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances are raised, exactly what all three of you are doing in your replies to me. WP:WIKIVOICE determination of what is a seriously contested assertion or fact in RS is not determined subjectively by the set of editors who lost multiple well-attended RfCs, it is determined by that established consensus. You have lost. You have lost not only once, but multiple times. You do not get to determine what a seriously contested assertation is, the community does via consensus. All three of you are misrepresenting basic Wikipedia rules and standards and thereby indicating you will keep relitigating the same issue no matter how many RfCs confirm it because you are convinced your repeatedly rejected interpretation of the sourcing is the correct one. This is very troubling, undermines the basic functioning of Wikipedia, and demonstrates exactly why a moratorium is needed. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not about winning. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, relitigating the same RfCs on the same content in short succession without raising previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances and indicating you will keep doing it over and over again because the consensus is of no concern to you is precisely what WP:WINNING cautions against: "Those who think it's more important to win, rather than to help create an encyclopedia we can all be proud of, are in the wrong place. Those here to habitually win or feel the need to rule, or control, are here for the wrong reason." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Surely there must be a compromise solution that works for both sides. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

kid named bothsidesism Laura240406 (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Why should both sides be pleased if only one of them is right? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 13:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This reliance on WP:IMRIGHT is not helpful, nor was yesterday's comment by another editor that essentially said that only one "side" in this argument believed in human rights. Please stop framing this as right vs. wrong. The reality is much more complicated than that. Coining (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

A more eloquent contradiction of NPOV is hard to imagine. Perhaps this would be a little clearer: "The article is not biased: because our side is right, expressing our side and repudiating the other side cannot constitute an NPOV violation." Larry Sanger (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being right. it's about what the majority of RS say (just like all the other genocides). M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Coining and Larry Sanger, I do not think The Cheesedealer was saying "my side is right so I don't see a problem".

I think he was saying that there are two sides with diametrically opposed views, meaning if one is true, the other is necessarily false. As a result it's impossible to please both sides because if one side is pleased, the other is not. So we should therefore discard the "compromise" argument, because it is impossible to compromise when it comes to taking a stance on whether Israel is committing genocide. Either they are, or they aren't, and we can't say both. But Cheese feel free to correct me if I misunderstood. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Except that @SuperPianoMan9167 didn't call for a solution where both sides would be "pleased"; he only wished for a compromise solution. Indeed, the nature of compromise is that it often leaves both sides unhappy. But beyond that, there are sentences, such as "Many genocide scholars and international organizations (insert list here) have declared that Israel's actions in Gaza since late 2023 constitute a genocide", that I think it's fair to say both "sides" believe is an objectively true statement. One side thinks the statement should be in Wikivoice and not attributed to other parties, and one side thinks that the genocide scholars and international organizations have it wrong (and that other experts do not come to the same conclusion), but none of that means that the above sentence isn't true. So, it's simply not correct to say that there is not even a logical opportunity for compromise. Coining (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

No, there is a compromise: say that a majority of scholars agree Israel is committing genocide, emphasizing that the scholars are in agreement while mentioning that non-scholars dispute the claim.

To paraphrase something Larry Sanger said elsewhere, in this case it is not Wikipedia who has made the claim, but genocide scholars.

Something like the following (inspired by Scientific consensus on climate change): Since the start of the Gaza war, there is general agreement among a majority of genocide scholars, international law experts, and academics that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza strip in an ongoing, intentional effort to systematically destroy the Palestinian people.[citations] Actions described as genocidal include... [citations] Most humanitarian organizations also agree that Israel is committing genocide,[citation], as well as a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry[citation] and the International Association of Genocide Scholars.[citation] Israel,[citations], the United States,[citations], other countries, and some experts[citations] dispute or deny that Israel's actions constitute genocide. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Giving equal validity is not a compromise, it's false balance. M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not equal validity, because the majority view is clearly indicated as the majority. The ... refers to a list of genocidal actions, and the last bit comes at the very end of the lead.

Would it be better if I explicitly stated that those disputing the genocide claim are in the minority? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Just like all genocides, the baseless claims of the genocide deniers shouldn't be given more weight than they deserve. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

In this case, it's not how much weight they "deserve", but how much weight is in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, which is about 17% or a sixth. That's much more prominent than genocide deniers for other genocides such as the Armenian genocide. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

It's insignificant, and besides, that's what it was during the early stages of the genocide (that became clearer to everyone as time went by). Now that the genocide has been confirmed by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the scholars have moved on and are now simply assessing the ongoing damage and the hypocrisy of certain nations and pseudo-scholars. M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

No one commission has authority, especially on Wikipedia, to pass judgement on this issue. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Luckily, it's one of the hundreds of RS that say so (an ever increasing number, btw). M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

While I will concur that that can be used as one of the reliable sources, it seemed like you were saying that it has sole authority to pass judgement due to its prominence in the issue. VidanaliK (talk to me) 17:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Think of it as the final nail in the coffin of the genocide denial camp. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. It doesn't seem like the side saying there is no genocide has "the final nail in the coffin"; there just have been fewer new statements since most people have already stated their opinions on the matter and don't respond to every new piece of evidence unless a request for comment is specifically made; there is even one source postdating the latest RfC saying Israel is not committing genocide. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

it's not how much weight they "deserve", but how much weight is in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, which is about 17% or a sixth

That's an interesting point VidanaliK. But I don't think it is true.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you were saying, but based on the context of the conversation it seemed like not only were you making a claim about weight of genocide denial claims, but about validity attributed to genocide denial claims being proportional to the percent of dissenting scholars.

If I'm understanding correctly, let's take the example of climate change, taking for granted "97% of climate scientists say climate change is happening as a result of humans" or whatnot.

So should 3% of information on Wikipedia about climate change act under the presupposition that climate science is a hoax, by that logic? For every 97 sentences about climate change that assume it's real, we get 3 sentences about how it isn't?

The alternative would be operating with 97% certainty the claim is true. However, I'm not sure what this would look like in practice in the broader context of an article. I worry in practice it would look like WP:FALSEBALANCE ("most agree climate science is real, though some disagree" gives the wrong idea). No one is saying we shouldn't weigh dissenting opinions accordingly—it's about the fact there's consensus means we operate under the assumption the claim (genocide) is true and voice dissenting opinions based on the presupposition they are false (not saying this explicitly, but using language like "X denies the genocide for Y and Z reasons'). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

3% of the information on Wikipedia should not act under the presupposition that climate science is a hoax, but at least 3% of the article should present that viewpoint neither taking it as true nor false. With that low of a percentage it is generally acceptable to state that there is climate change in Wikiovice, but with a much larger percentage like 17% (one sixth) there should definitely be more due weight. I am not saying one sixth of Wikipedia should say that there is no genocide, but one sixth of the presentation of arguments should at least present why those one-sixth of people say there is no genocide, and those views should definitely be included with more prominence than they are now. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is 1/6 over the threshold and 3% under? To me 1/6 seems well below the acceptable threshold for it not to be considered fringe. For me it would have to be closer to 1/3. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Most fringe viewpoints have percentages below this, I'm pretty sure. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Also there is the 36% of people that say "war crimes akin to genocide" but not genocide; those should also be taken into account as why they think Israel is committing war crimes but not full-on genocide. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Very good point, we also have more recent polls that show stronger convictions, no? Namely, the IAGS vote which was 86%. There was no "akin to genocide" in that vote. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it would help to have a Wikipedia policy about at what point a statement is seriously contested enough that it cannot be stated in Wikivoice; what percentage of Wikipedia-reliable sources are required to state the opposite in order for it not to be considered nearly unanimous enough to state a claim as fact? Again: 3%/97% vs. 17%/46% or 53%/46%. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this. I would love to work with you to create a policy around this, but I'm not sure what that process would look like. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we create a draft in Wikispace to propose it as a policy, then have an RfC about it. To have a specific percentage threshold I think it would be a good idea to look at claims that are generally considered fringe (such as that the Holocaust was faked, or that climate change is a hoax) and figure out what are their percentage in prominence, and then figure out what is the general upper bound for these kinds of statements. I'm starting one at Wikipedia:Seriously contested assertations. VidanaliK (talk to me) 18:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds exciting. Let's do it. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, let's move discussion of the percentage threshold to the relevant talk page. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

So from the reliable sources I've gathered, for specialist-specific surveys the lower bound for a legitimate debate is 19% and the upper bound for a fringe claim is 9%, so somewhere between that (14%?) could be a useful threshold, similar to the one-sixth I previously suggested. VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please outdent this conversation. It is illegible on mobile. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 OK, sorry. I usually work on a computer so I don't notice that.

So from the reliable sources I've gathered, for specialist-specific surveys the lower bound for a legitimate debate is 19% and the upper bound for a fringe claim is 9%, so somewhere between that (14%?) could be a useful threshold, similar to the one-sixth I previously suggested. VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

VidanaliK, how did you arrive at this percentage? Lumdeloo (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

One sixth? The pie chart in the article. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

SuperPianoMan9167, I think your suggestion for an alternative introduction text is very good. This is what I would expect a wikipedia article on this subject would sound like. You're giving due weight to the majority view among scholars and human rights organizations. But by not using wikivoice, you're making clear that is still an seriously disputed issue, not an undisputed fact. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I second that. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Did I say which side is right? I was just addressing this argument that we are mandated to satisfy everyone as one comment said above: We are not, there is no policy imposing that everyone should be happy with the outcome, and that changes should be sought just because some people just don't like the way things are currently.

One point for WP:AGF btw — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 17:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually there is a policy to satisfy as many people as possible: "Editors who appear to be in the majority should make an effort to continue discussions and attempts to reach as wide an agreement as possible within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." (WP:VOTE); "consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." (WP:CONACHIEVE) Heitordp (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

That is true -- to a point. But if one group says the sky is blue and another the sky is red; we should not compromise and say the sky is purple. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

In that case no one will be happy. With that assumption there would be an analysis of how many reliable sources say blue versus red, and then give due weight to each side, varying whether one side is said in wikivoice or not based on particular thresholds. VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about winning or losing and I am not saying the contention is based on Wikipedia editors I am saying it is contested by reliable sources as multiple reliable sources say it is not a genocide. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 11:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Raskolnikov.Rev wrote: "Wikivoice does not require unanimity or the absence of ongoing debate, it requires consensus in high-quality RS describing a dominant view in the relevant expert field. That threshold is obviously met. Multiple reliable sources explicitly state that the consensus view among genocide scholars and human rights organizations is that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza."

For me, this gets to the heart of the matter. This description is very specific. But is that really what decides if you can use wikivoice? Consensus in hi-quality RS describing a dominant view in the relevant expert field?

WP:wikivoice says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". And: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue."

To me that's not the same as Raskolnikov's definition of what wikivoice requires.

A dominant view in a relevant expert field, in my opinion, should be described as just that, a dominant view, not as an uncontested fact. Which is exactly what we are now doing, by using wikivoice.

And then, what is/are the relevant expert fields? Genocide scholars and human rights organizations are mentioned. But what about legal scholars? What about historians? Military scholars? And who decides that?

And, in this case, why not also take into account that genocide is a legal term and the case hasn't been decided yet in court.

So to me, it's not clear cut at all. When is a minority view in a certain field so insignificant that you can state the majority view in wikivoice? And who decides what the relevant fields are? And should we just decide that by taking a vote on it with a few dozen editors? Lumdeloo (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Re your last point: I've brought up that idea in a Wikipedia policy proposal, using existing claims accepted as fringe, such as Holocaust and climate change denial, as examples for determining the threshold for fringe claims. VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Good idea! Should also the relevant expert fields be taken into account in your proposal. I mean: what if the majority view among genocide scholars that Israel committed genocide is supported by 95% of the scholars, but the majority view on legal scholars is supported by 75% of the scholars? What do we do then? Just add them up and calculate an average? I don't mean to complicate your proposal. Just an question. Lumdeloo (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we can use a threshold for multiple sources, so a threshold of specialty and general scholars, as well as general surveying. So the proposal could say something like, for general scholars the threshold for determining if a claim is fringe is 5% (example), but for specialty scholars it is 15% (again, example). So maybe we can find examples of settled debates where the minority view is considered fringe, and ongoing debates where multiple perspectives have valid arguments (such as interpretations of quantum mechanics). VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

There's actually a similar proposal at the NPOV policy talk page already. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if a claim can be considered not fringe if ANY Wikipedia-reliable sources agree with it outside an opinion piece. This might be going a bit too far though. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: From 14:53 UTC on January 3rd to 12:20 UTC on January 4th, there was a secondary question regarding if this moratorium be imposed on all the concerned articles that can be seen in the collapsed template. (Prior to this, the question seems to have been implied by the wording across all the concerned Wikipedia articles instead of specifically listed.) Regardless of form, this question only existed for the first 26 hours of this RfC discussion being opened. Anyone who has voted for one or the other (إيان, Coining, Ita140188, Laura240406, Lukewarmbeer, Place Clichy, Placeholderer, Raskolnikov.Rev, and The Cheesedealer) should consider updating their comments and the closer should keep this in mind. (Those who believe this should be a global moratorium should consider a discussion at a noticeboard, preferably after this discussion is closed.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion does not appear to be an RfC at the moment. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I have fixed the mistake with this edit. Thank you for the correction. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D : No moratorium, and certainly local and not global if there were to be any. These discussions are "challenged so often" for reasons which probably relate to the problems inherent with this article in the first place. Might it make sense for this article to be merged more broadly into another? So many issues appear to stem from the fact that this might well be a WP:POVFORK in the first place off of broader Gaza War type articles, though I would not for now say which and where it might be best. In fact, it could be multiple options in a multi-merge move that would best solve for these issues in the long run and for good, not merely a moratorium. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 06:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D : No moratorium, because clearly there isn't consensus. Wikipedia is supposed to use consensus and provide perspectives that are generally agreed upon to be accurate - that isn't the case here. If you don't like having the conversation, don't get involved, but its disingenuous to close the arguments now that one side's preferred result is reached, when getting to that result took just as many failed conversations. TimeEngineer (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A Editors who disagree with the outcome have had a lot of time to make their case, and repeating the same arguments every few months is tiresome for us all. Please, let us go forward, not engage in circular debates. Dualpendel (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A, and I would also add globally, but this discussion would need to either be advertised very widely for that, or, be hosted at a more centralized venue. I advocate for this moratorium because of the extraordinary demographic collapse in Gaza, the maintenance of the same political and military structures and attitudes in Israel, the ongoing bombings, starvations, shootings, denial of aid, the ongoing seizure of territory, and the expansion of pogroms, forced displacements, and killings outside Gaza in the West Bank and in parts of Israel itself. -Darouet (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This argument is not based in policy. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia: my comment reflects what we know about what's going on in Israel and Gaza. I have an aversion to unnecessary wikilawyering, which people tend to get caught up in as they stray farther and farther from reality and the sources we use to faithfully represent it. -Darouet (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A: The relentless disruptions are turning ridiculous, so as long break as possible, preferably for much longer than a mere 12 months. David A (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

To elaborate, from what I recall the original discussion lasted for 2 months and had around a 100 participants. Following the result that the pro-human rights "side" had more substantial arguments and twice as many votes, the opposing "side" has spammed attempts to overturn the result. However, the situation as a whole is not turning better for the Palestinians. There is only less reporting, due to that the Palestinian journalists and their families are being systematically assassinated, so the academic consensus is highly unlikely to change rather than become even more onesided. David A (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You are accusing editors, without evidence, of being "pro-Zionist" editors recruited by the government of Israel. That is casting aspersions. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought that a large part of the participants in these discussions had made the reasons for their longtime commitments here extremely self-evident, but apologise if I went over the line or caused offense to anybody, especially those it does not apply to. I could not think of a better way to clearly define the main reason for the disagreement here. David A (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest you strike that remark about pro Zionist editors as that is WP:ASPERSIONS. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I have done so. Is this acceptable? David A (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You're still accusing without evidence that editors are being paid by the government of Israel to influence this article. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I intended. I have just seen links to news articles about the Israeli government spending massive amounts of money to teach its citizens to edit Wikipedia during previous dicussions here, and mentioned that as a part of the pattern, but I have removed that part as well now, as it can be misunderstood. David A (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem. David A (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

It might be better to use strikethrough for your changes as the replies to the changed version lack context now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, it is too late now, and I prefer to avoid any further controversy. Also, I just checked with ChatGPT, and it said that the claims I remembered seeing about educating citizens to edit Wikipedia seem to have been a combination of recent spendings on diplomacy with 11 years outdated information into speculation, so it was unreliable anyway. David A (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I think adding back the changes and striking them through would be reasonable if possible, I was initially confused when I was reading the discussion ~ Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I reworded as well as removed text, and it was admittedly worded poorly and apparently with partially inaccurate information, so it apparently sounded worse than what was intended, so I prefer to avoid any others taking offense from it. David A (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The Israeli hasbara budget was increased from $150 million in the 2025 budget to a massive $730 million for this year. If posting on social media can get people US$7000 per post then editing Wikipedia will probably get something as well. I am sure present company is not paid, but there will be some out there. Dualpendel (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

That is better thank you(though it is better to strikethrough comments than edit them after editors have replied.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

With appreciation for the edits to this comment (though in agreement that striking through is a better approach so that readers can see what the basis of all the replies was), I'd appreciate some group examination of the assertion that the situation as a whole is not turning better for the Palestinians. There is only less reporting. I understand that life in even a former warzone isn't good, and that there continue to be skirmishes even during the ceasefire, but are we really at the point where we don't see any difference between an active war and even a fragile ceasefire? There are statistics showing a notable decrease in deaths and especially injuries in Gaza (the injury number in this case is perhaps more notable, given that there are always natural deaths). Anyway, I understand that this is, literally, a contentious topic, and that we're often discussing whether genocide is "ongoing", but it would be helpful to have a wider perspective on things. Coining (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Just a WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS reminder that these kinds of arguments, while helpful in an opinion piece or news article, shouldn't be used on Wikipedia; a notable decrease in deaths can be reported, but whether or not the war has stopped should not use statistics to make a logical analysis but rather reliable sources that outright state one way or the other. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not making the argument that I think you think I'm making-- I'm not even here trying to edit the article in this instance. I was simply responding to the talk page assertion that nothing in the big picture has gotten better in the last few months. WP:OR is allowed on talk pages in part to allow discussion of points like this.

But I do understand your perhaps broader point, which is that this branch of the discussion distracts from the broader thread on the moratorium proposal. I don't feel a need to continue this side-point now that I've at least put forward a viewpoint that allows editors reading the thread to evaluate that more has changed in recent months than just less reporting on Gaza. Coining (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Obviously option D. Don't be silly. The proposal is not showing evidence or policy for the claims, but that doesn't matter because: First, moving events here, and external views can change plus the reversal in RFC just a few months ago at this article does not constitute an eternal verity or mean stop CONSENSUSCANCHANGE (and I'm fairly sure the question will return here in a month or two.) Second, articles are independent so can (and must) vary - articles differ and while one may hope they do not directly contradict, there is nothing forcing wording consistency so that they all say the same thing -- and why would one want umpteen identical articles anyway. One might hope they do not directly contradict, but they must have different topics or they should not exist as separate articles, with separate writing. Any opinion here that other unidentified articles should observe a moratorium is no more binding on them than their wording is binding on here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

p.s. (tweaked for clarity -- "The proposal" is what's not showing those, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC))

Opton D. For two reasons. First, and most importantly, the fact that people continue to contest this shows very clearly that there is not consensus in the community for the (to me clearly false) claim that there is consensus in reliable sources for this. Without consensus in the community, an attempt for a moratorium is an attempt to win by voting what can't be won through working for consensus to a compromise solution (i.e. NPOV). Second, a moratorium is an attempt to literally kill the wiki process, which is always about openness, refinement, thoughtful collaboration. Moratoriums should be used only for very short periods of time, and only when there are no other options. There is another option here: collabation and compromise and working through the sources to understand that, no, actually, the reliable sources are not in any way sufficient to support WikiVoice here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

working through the sources to understand that, no, actually, the reliable sources are not in any way sufficient to support WikiVoice here

So you are of the opinion that the RfC itself was wrong? Laura240406 (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Laura240406: With all due respect, your comment appears to be sealioning, as you are obviously already aware of Jimbo's opinion on this matter. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

no I asked this question since Jimbo seems to question the RfC itself rather than a moratorium on it, which ignores the proposal Laura240406 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

He is, and I agree that moratoriums should be fairly short and have a !vote that way. However I'd have thought he would know better than encourage immediately starting on again at this if he wants any chance of changing anything when there's no new good reason to do so. Doing that entrenches positions. Perhaps we should have some better guidance about moratoriums. NadVolum (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Jimbo explicitly in that !vote comments on a moratorium. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

what can't be won through working for consensus if a two-month-long discussion that involved dissecting hundreds of RS is not working for consensus, then I don't know what is. In any case, the genocide has been confirmed by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the scholars have since moved on from that pseudo-debate and are now simply discussing the effects of the genocide. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I would disagree that scholars have movedo n given some still dispute that it is a genocide so it is absolutely an active debate amongst scholars GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There is another option here: collabation and compromise and working through the sources to understand that, no, actually, the reliable sources are not in any way sufficient to support WikiVoice here The community did in fact do just that, as evidenced by the extraordinary effort involved in compiling {{Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate}} and the subsequent RfC discussion which relied heavily on this list, and came to the exact opposite conclusion. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That still doesn't preclude compromise on the precise wording of the lead sentence.

Also, the template excludes non-scholarly opinions. Non-expert opinions are still valuable to include, just with less weight than scholarly sources. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Non-expert opinions are included in the Gaza genocide article with appropriate weight per NPOV. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This line of discussion is futile. Mr. Wales has repeatedly stated that he considers the views of governments, NGOs, analysts and commentators with unclear qualifications to be comparable to, or in some cases more authoritative than, those of genocide scholars and established human rights organizations, including in situations where governments are directly involved in or supporting one of the parties to the conflict and therefore have a clear conflict of interest.(, , , , , , , , ). Under that flawed logic, it makes sense that he would argue the article does not reflect all reliable sources. Paprikaiser (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Based on my past experience with talk pages that had to have a moratorium applied, I must disagree with your points here. As a prime example, the Gulf of Mexico article has over the course of 2025 received numerous requests to rename the article or change the lede to reflect the Gulf of America Executive Order. This is repeatedly been discussed throughout 2025 and there have been three moratoriums on the subject, with the last currently extending to near the end of this year. By the argument presented here, there must not be a consensus for this. However, the last major Move Request discussion was 2-15 on moving to Gulf of America, leading it to be SNOW closed and the last major RfC on adding Gulf of America to the lede was 3-20 when it was similarly SNOW closed. Users repeatedly contesting the same content after a discussion can be more of a sign that a moratorium is needed than a sign that it should be avoided.

Sometimes a moratorium is needed for time, like with 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes receiving a month long moratorium on if it should be the then "2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake" or if "2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes" was a better title. Before the moratorium, there were 12 days of various move request discussions in the 15 days the article had existed. Post-moratorium, the number of scientific publications was analyzed with a significant majority leaning earthquakes, leading to a move request without any opposes.

I hope that you will look more into moratoriums in the future and see why they have been imposed in various situations. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Snow closes are an important factor in determining that there actually is strong consensus in the community. For the relevant issues here, there have not been snow closes, there have been very tight RfCs that led to closes that have been strongly protested by good Wikipedians (and, of course, supported by others). We are nowhere near having an article for which every statement is one that can be agreed upon by almost everyone - and that's what community consensus means. As long as there is strong opposition from reasonable people on policy based grounds, we need to keep working to revise and find the things that we can all say together - and we need to resist the rather obvious attempts of one side of the debate to "win" with a battleground mentality that attempts to silence the other side. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, in contentious topics such as this one, it is impossible to find statements that people will universally agree on. And this is why we are not looking at a consensus on whether Wikipedians believe there is a genocide, but on whether there is a consensus in reliable sources to state that there is a genocide. A majority of reliable sources do say that, the question is whether this majority is overwhelming enough to be considered a broad consensus – and the latter question is what has been less straightforward, but this (expected) level of divide among Wikipedians doesn't mean the sources are as divided.

I've, sadly, seen this battleground mentality from both sides, and that is exactly why I don't believe any statement, even the most innocuous, will reach a perfect, near-unanimous consensus. Snow closes would happen in an ideal world, but we do not live in this ideal world, and we have to build and find middle grounds in a divided community. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I would say the majority is not nearly overwhelming enough to claim consensus among scholars. I went through that whole template with the hundreds of sources manually, i also let several ai tools analyse it. I cannot for the life of me get to the conclusion there is scholarly consensus on this topic.

But I understand you (and other editors) feel differently.

My question is, is using wikivoice to state the (overwhelming or not overwhelming) majority view really the best compromise we can settle on? Using wikivoice erases the minority voice almost completely as if it’s a fringe opinion. Can’t we change the lead text in another way to highlight the majority view without resorting to wikivoice? Lumdeloo (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

(...) there have been very tight RfCs that led to closes that have been strongly protested by good Wikipedians (and, of course, supported by others). Well hopefully I am not on the bad Wikipedian list.

In any case, my point here was that I have seen the opposite of what you say be true from my perspective. (Especially that second point.) While they are a restriction, it is at least done by the community and not one that ArbCom had to enforce because of too much trouble disruption with a segment of the site. (I can think of two other moratoriums that are due to how problematic discussions got on article titles...) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

the fact that people continue to contest this shows very clearly that there is not consensus in the community for the (to me clearly false) claim that there is consensus in reliable sources for this - Israel/Palestine is a contentious issue, so of course people continue to contest the RfC, consensus or no consensus. The fact people contest the RfC does not automatically mean there is not consensus in the community as established by the 2-month long RfC. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is not counting up votes and giving preference to the majority. It also is not "this RfC establishes consensus so we will never have to return to this issue". Consensus changes in an attempt to find a solution that works for as many editors as possible, which is not at all what is going on here, because one side of the debate basically wants to shut down the other side. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

A majority supported by a robust analysis of the literature and a minority trying to rehash the same tired arguments are not similar “sides” إيان (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D There is no consensus on "gaza genocide" and even scholars are still arguing over if what happened during the Israel-Hamas war emcompasses this definition. The fact that there are disputes with genocide scholars means that there should be no moratorium on the Gaza Genocide page on the platform, especially since new sources and published material on the subject are coming out all the time. I agree with Jimmy Wale's pragmatic approach on this subject. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I've seen the RfC arguments relitigated across nearly every discussion tangentially related to Israel-Palestine, so option A, globally. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D - per GothicGolem29 - Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option D The fact there are repeated challenges demonstrates a lack of consensus. See also WP:OWN. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D This article is extremely problematic as is, especially the lead that presents things as facts, and its current state should not be frozen for months or years. --Deansfa (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A, globally No POV Fork is non-negotiable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Option C But no rfc should be entertained without material changes - like ICC case determining Israel didn't commit genocide Cinaroot  💬 07:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D. It's clear that opinions vary widely on whether a genocide is occurring. We should keep these discussions open until a consensus view is reached. It's likely that changes need to be made to bring us closer to a consensus. Open discussion and debate are healthy. Let's keep it going. Bill Heller (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A. The last RfC was recent, large, and decisively closed, yet the same points keep being raised with no new evidentiary basis. A one-year pause seems proportionate and consistent with how other contentious topics are handled when editors refuse to accept an outcome.Tashmetu (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D. On a live, high-conflict topic we shouldn’t pre-empt future updates (per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE), and repeat threads can be handled case-by-case under WP:REHASH/WP:IDHT without creating a blanket rule. ScottyNolan (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support Option A (12-month moratorium). Multiple well-attended discussions and RfCs have examined this issue in depth and have reached the same outcome. Since then, repeated attempts to reopen the matter have not introduced materially new sources, arguments, or developments that would warrant revisiting the conclusion. At this point, the process has ceased to be productive consensus-testing and has instead become repetitive relitigating of settled ground, which is contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. A 12-month moratorium is a proportionate and pragmatic cooling-off measure. It does not foreclose future change, but establishes a reasonable threshold for reopening the issue and helps restore focus to constructive editing. Lf8u2 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A. This is simple. If "repeated challenges" meant that we needed to rerun extremely well attended and advertised large RFCs, we would be having the same five ones all year round. At some point the community has to respect when consensus has been reached, even if they disagree with this. This is disruptive. Parabolist (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D. Foreclosing discussion of a key article about a hot war—an article that clearly champions one side and condemns the other side, thus violating NPOV so profoundly that even Jimmy Wales thinks it's worth weighing in—only exacerbates an already serious problem. Options A-C compound the problem by requiring that the bias be frozen without dialogue. What if new information emerges, that would clearly support the other side, occurs in the intervening time? Larry Sanger (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

If you will reread the RfC, it clearly states: please note that this shouldn't prevent new discussions that brings new stuff to the table.. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see my response above in which I explain that a moratorium would effectively prevent new discussions. Coining (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This moratorium would only prevent new attempts to overturn previous consensus that don't cite new information. If new information significant enough to somehow shift the current consensus arises, this moratorium would not effect subsequent discussions around said source.

If this chain of events does occur & someone tries to cite this moratorium to close said discussion anyway, you'd then be well within your right to argue that the moratorium wouldn't apply & that they're misapplying community consensus. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it would affect the subsequent discussions. It does so by putting up another barrier to those discussions. Merely the fact that you said it would be on me (or other opponents of this proposed moratorium) to make that argument, instead of it being the proponents of this moratorium who would spend their time, effort, and persuasive abilities to argue against improper expansions of the moratorium shows the detrimental effect it would have on the discussions that are supposedly unaffected.

It's not too dissimilar from how that explicitly said it was about the lead sentence of this one article has been used throughout Wikipedia to change articles and cut off debate. Coining (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite following that. The RfC result of that RfC was no consensus in Wikipedia to put the word 'consensus' into the lead sentence so it isn't there. Did you mean this RfC Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_12#RfC_on_first_sentence which was about whether it really is a genocide and where the consensus result was yes it is according to reliable sources? Note the results do not conflict with each other. NadVolum (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I linked to the wrong RfC. I should have used the link the FAQ on this page. I've corrected the link now. Thank you. Coining (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that the onus would be on the opponents of this moratorium. Rather, if this moratorium did pass & say, you began a discussion concerning a new high quality source that could potentially shift the pre-existing consensus, policy would be on your side.

As for someone potentially abusing this moratorium to shutdown actual new developments, we can only WP:AGF that our fellow editors will respect consensus, or if they don't, that policy will be properly enforced in kind. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The entire point of a moratorium is to shut down all new discussion. Even if no moratorium would in place, relitigating old discussions without providing new points would be shut down pretty soon per existing Wikipedia policy. Also, the concept of a moratorium is in an essay, not a formal policy. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

While the concept of a moratorium is described in an essay, the consensus formed through it is based in policy.

The purpose of a moratorium is explicitly not "to shut down all new discussion"

"Where a proposal is made repeatedly, and essentially the same proposal is made again, without new evidence or arguments, only a short time after the close of the previous proposal, administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time."

This moratorium has been proposed specifically because people keep "relitigating old discussions without providing new points". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:MORATORIUM actually does try to cover this: However, moratoriums should be used with caution, and only within limits, as they run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia that any editor may initiate a discussion on any topic related to the operations of the encyclopedia at any time (though not at any place). The duration of a moratorium should be balanced against the likelihood that consensus will change with time (or new information will develop). An existing moratorium may be lifted early if there is consensus to do so.

Additionally, it seems like the proposer (The Cheesedealer) tried to cover this: The amount of proposals to cancel the consensus regarding the representation of the genocide in Wikivoice - established by many RfCs across more than one article - without bringing anything new to the table other than regurgitating arguments that were disregarded in the previous RfCs is causing an immense waste of editors' time and is becoming lowkey disruptive. I'm suggesting here the imposition of a WP:MORATORIUM across all the concerned Wikipedia articles to prevent further revisits of this conversation, please note that this shouldn't prevent new discussions that brings new stuff to the table. (EM)

If a moratorium passes, then those trying to enforce it would be bound by the inclusion of those conditions. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The point is that we had an extremely long discussion with a massive number of participant editors to reach this conclusion, and cannot be expected to just retread the same old arguments over and over and over to the point of exhaustion until the other side gets its way, without any significant changes for the better in the situation itself to warrant a change in Wikipedia's portrayal of it. David A (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D Given that this topic is under constant debate and scrutiny academically, geopolitically, and even on our very own platform, I think that a moratorium will significantly reduce our ability to respond appropriately to that information and for that reason is not only pointless but actively detrimental. I also believe that a moratorium would be violative of WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE and inherently violates WP:CRYSTALBALL since it assumes no additional information can come out that would render the use of wikivoice in this instance mistaken. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A or B: It took me a long time to read all this discussion and all the previous ones! It is a very serious topic so I wanted to make sure I got it right. After reviewing the materials and sources, I am persuaded that a moratorium is needed here. Having the same debate repeatedly is fine if a topic is controversial and yields new argumentation and sourcing. However I did not see this here, and there is no prospect that it will come out in the next 6 or 12 months that will be of a kind that can overturn the consensus in the human rights community. Ismeiri (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Support B/C. As far as I can tell this disruption has endured for over 3 months since the RfC close in September 2025. I can't support Option A as appears disproportionate as a moratorium, but given the level of the disruption I can't object either; my preference would be C but B is also reasonable. Why? There as been no WP:CLOSECHALLENGE since the RfC was closed, there is thus no formal dispute about the close, only loud noise. The disruption merely attempts to circumvent community processes, by means of asserting that NPOV supersedes CON; it does not. We all know this as if the RfC was endorsed at AN then this so-called NPOV would not supersede that consensus, but unfortunately dissenters failed to follow the required process in order to discover that. It's otherwise obvious that if this was any other CTOP article, with less participation, then such disruption would lead to warnings, TBANs and the like. The fact that a vocal minority of the community engages in such disruption doesn't make it any better, it only makes it worse. All articles should follow the same processes on this encyclopedia; there are no exceptions and I don't believe we should be carving one out for this article either. For reference I'm neutral about this topic being in wikivoice and didn't !vote in the RfC, but I am very bias about policy and guidelines as I strongly support them. CNC (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D - in general I think moratoriums are a bad idea with little grounding in policy. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE is policy, while WP:MORATORIUM is part of an essay, and even then the essay notes that moratoriums run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia.

Just what is a moratorium? A consensus not to discuss something? So if a discussion should be reopened, like if new information or arguments emerge, editors who want to raise that discussion now have an WP:ONUS to establish consensus just to discuss it? While those who support the status quo can (and, understandably, do) attempt to shut it down procedurally before the new ideas get a hearing?

This makes discussions following imposition of a moratorium, where the issues raised might be substantive and worthy of a hearing, into a recipe for arcane, procedural and bureaucratic wiki-lawyering. Better to rehash disputes over content than to spend the same time having disputes over the rules of wikipedia. Not to mention the fact that formal discussions over moratoriums are amongst the votiest we have in the project, and thus should be the least binding.

It's understandable to be frustrated or even upset if you think editors are refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK when a consensus was reached, but no one has a right to freeze consensus as it was. If a new discussion is started that doesn't raise anything novel to discuss, plenty of people will be sympathetic to the notion that a recent previous discussion covered it. And if it does raise something worth discussing - well, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Option A, Globally, pr nom, Huldra (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Option D. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, per u:Coining. Alaexis_¿question? 23:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment (already voted) the main point that keeps being repeated is that consensus can change, therefore a moratorium is wrong. That is already explicitly addressed in the nomination itself. If genuinely new arguments or evidence emerge that warrant reopening the issue, a moratorium would not prevent that. What it does aim to prevent is repeated rehashing of the same points without anything new being brought to the table. The fact that this discussion keeps happening is not evidence that the previous outcome was fundamentally wrong, because the objections continue to lack substantive new arguments. Precisely what the moratorium is trying to address. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Even without a moratorium, conversations that don't bring anything new to the table can already be SNOW closed or procedural closed. VidanaliK (talk to me) 22:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Except that not all such conversations are always being snow closed timely, and when the new rehashing topic emerges and gets lot of polite POV pushers to engage in the discussion, it would create a false sense of new arguments and make a snow close difficult to be carried out. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 Paprikaiser (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)